Thread: Kiszla: McD just the scapegoat

Originally Posted by silkamilkamonico

I've been saying this for years. I'm glad a sports journalist finally did some research to figure this out, about 8 years too late.

Ok, you're both wrong.

Originally Posted by silkamilkamonico

We were an organization that was set on offense, and just as confused on defense. Then Bowlen hires some 32 year old coordinator and proceeds to give him the keys to the entire organization. Bowlen didn't even bother stepping in when McDaniels started running the organization into the ground.

Like everything that happens to the team is a direct refelction of the coach (McDaniels), everything that happens with the organization is a direct reflection of the owner (Bowlen).

Don't kid yourself. This is all Bowlen's fault.

So why wasn't it Bowlen's fault until after Shanahan left? When Shanahan was fired, nobody blamed Bowlen for the status of the franchise. It was that evil, power hungry, arrogant SOB Shanahan sucking off the tit of his prior success and riding it out. Now that it's poor wittle Joshie Pooh who got fired, he was scapegoated, given too much power, and of course it's all Bowlen's fault, now. The only thing Bowlen is at fault for is trusting McDaniels to do what he said he would. Josh lied, Bowlen and Broncos fans paid the price.

I hate to point to the facts, but we did go to the NFC championship in 2005 with Jake Plummer, 7 year removed from our last super bowl victory after Brian Griese. So "Steady decline" is relative to us expecting Super Bowls, not the reality of our record.

Please go read the facts before you try and jump on the back of a journalist who only offered up his "opinion". Facts and opinions are completely different and there was no research had to express it.

It took me all of 2 seconds to look it up and prove you wrong.

Originally Posted by silkamilkamonico

I've been saying this for years. I'm glad a sports journalist finally did some research to figure this out, about 8 years too late.

Originally Posted by Lancane

I figured you'd agree with it Silk...

Bowlen would have to prove himself a genius to get Silk's support at this time...

Well, with all due respect to Bowlen and any other fans that have followed this organization since the turn of the millenium, if you can't smell the stagnant place this organization has been in, you need to take off your rose colored glasses.

My mistake is the steady decline. It was a stagnant decline, with absolutely no progression. The 2000 years were certainly not anywhere near as successful as the 1990's.

Originally Posted by silkamilkamonico

Well, with all due respect to Bowlen and any other fans that have followed this organization since the turn of the millenium, if you can't smell the stagnant place this organization has been in, you need to take off your rose colored glasses.

My mistake is the steady decline. It was a stagnant decline, with absolutely no progression. The 2000 years were certainly not anywhere near as successful as the 1990's.

I agree with you, and that does rest on Bowlen's feet, because he was so use to giving the head coaches full power. Reeves had it when he bought the team, and because of Reeve's success and Shanahan's desire to continue that way, it became the blue print for this organization, but I do believe Bowlen has learned the error of his ways, that's why he's looking to hire more decision makers in the front office.

Originally Posted by Tned

Ok, you're both wrong.

I admitted it. A stagnant progression with absolutely no development was so much better.

2000 - 11-5
2001 - 8-8
2002 - 9-7
2003 - 10-6
2004 - 10-6
2005 - 13-3
2006 - 9-7
2007 - 7-8
2008 - 8-8


[sarcasm] Just look at that upward progression. That was most definetely an organization that was going places when McDaniels took over. If I were to define progression from a record standpoint, this would most definetely be it. The way they started the decade winning almost 10 games every year, to finishing the last 3 years without evebn making the playoffs. Absolutely unbelievable. [/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by HORSEPOWER 56

So why wasn't it Bowlen's fault until after Shanahan left? When Shanahan was fired, nobody blamed Bowlen for the status of the franchise.

It was. At least IMHO. Not only did he not fire Shanahan earlier then he should have, but he allowed Shanahan to continue after he finally broke through with a 13-3 season, and then in wake of an embarassing playoff blowout loss at home, proceeds to change QB's instead of building what we had that year, and Denver has yet to see the playoffs since.

Not to mention, not stepping in earlier and saving Shanahan from himself with all of his defensive changes. If he did it earlier, Shanahan might have actually won with Cutler and would still be in Denver.

It's been Bowlen and his business model's fault the entire time, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Lancane

I agree with you, and that does rest on Bowlen's feet, because he was so use to giving the head coaches full power. Reeves had it when he bought the team, and because of Reeve's success and Shanahan's desire to continue that way, it became the blue print for this organization, but I do believe Bowlen has learned the error of his ways, that's why he's looking to hire more decision makers in the front office.

Well, if Bowlen can turn this around I will most definetely be the first to acknowledge it. I did with McDaniels. I may have strong opinions, but I will not argue with actual results, or lack of them for that matter.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

but I think Orton can be a franchise QB.

I must have missed the laugh track.

We've certainly devalued the term "franchise QB" haven't we? It used to mean a Brady or a Manning. Now it means Orton? I'll agree Orton has exceeded expectations and can be a starting NFL quarterback but I doubt he'll ever be more than, say, Joe Flacco - competent but not great.

Originally Posted by eessydo

I hate to point to the facts, but we did go to the NFC championship in 2005 with Jake Plummer, 7 year removed from our last super bowl victory after Brian Griese. So "Steady decline" is relative to us expecting Super Bowls, not the reality of our record.

Please go read the facts before you try and jump on the back of a journalist who only offered up his "opinion". Facts and opinions are completely different and there was no research had to express it.

It took me all of 2 seconds to look it up and prove you wrong.

Would you care to explain to me your facts of how this organization could not figure out how to not get blwon out in the playoffs? How convenient of you to somehow leave that little nugget completely out of the equation.

So now we are saying we had a steady decline "in the playoffs" but not season to season?

I am totally confused. A steady decline would have our record trending downwards over the 8 year period, because your view is that this being pointed out by the media was just "8 years to late". I show you how just 5 years ago we had a bye-week, won a divisional game and went to the AFC championship and now it is about the playoffs and our losses?

Seems like you are working on a moving topic now that someone showed you how clearly you were wrong on jumping on the back of this reporter.

Facts are facts, and they are not on your side.

Originally Posted by silkamilkamonico

Would you care to explain to me your facts of how this organization could not figure out how to not get blwon out in the playoffs? How convenient of you to somehow leave that little nugget completely out of the equation.

Originally Posted by eessydo

So now we are saying we had a steady decline "in the playoffs" but not season to season?

I am totally confused. A steady decline would have our record trending downwards over the 8 year period, because your view is that this being pointed out by the media was just "8 years to late". I show you how just 5 years ago we had a bye-week, won a divisional game and went to the AFC championship and now it is about the playoffs and our losses?

Seems like you are working on a moving topic now that someone showed you how clearly you were wrong on jumping on the back of this reporter.

Facts are facts, and they are not on your side.

If you are somehow implying that the playoffs are some kind of chocolate at the end of the Sundae Cone and what really matters is the regular season, then your facts are utterly ridiculous and I'm not even going to waste my time.

Originally Posted by silkamilkamonico

I admitted it. A stagnant progression with absolutely no development was so much better.

2000 - 11-5
2001 - 8-8
2002 - 9-7
2003 - 10-6
2004 - 10-6
2005 - 13-3
2006 - 9-7
2007 - 7-8
2008 - 8-8

Pretty good record, all things considered. You've been peddling this theory of yours that the organization was broken for years; it has never been even close to accurate...well, perhaps until 2010 I guess. In any event there are 32 teams, and only one gets a Lombardi every year. If thats your only measure of success then not much help anyone can give you I guess. For me I wanty the Broncos to win as many games as possible every year. 8-8 looks pretty damned good compared to whatever we'll end up at. 9-7 better still. 10-6 even better. Every year you win more than you lose is in fact a good year. Totally satisfying? Nope, but then life is funny like that.

Originally Posted by HORSEPOWER 56

Steady decline? Strange I must have slept through all of those seasons that we went from 10-6 to 8-8 to 6-10 to 4-12 and bottomed out with a top 5 draft pick. Oh wait, that's because it NEVER HAPPENED. Kizla's a damned McDaniels loving Drama Queen. Steady decline? Well, if you consider we were 3 years removed from the Conference Championship Game (which some NFL franchises haven't actually played in in my lifetime) with Shanahan with no season under 6-10 in his whole tenure as coach, I say "Steady decline" is complete horse shit. Stagnant? Maybe. Declining? Bullshit!

There were no bag wearing fans, nor were there "fire ______" signs at home games, nor were there empty seats or disinterested fans who had stopped buying merchandise. Before McDaniels came along we ALWAYS felt we had at least a chance at a playoff spot... ALWAYS!

And this clown calls himself a journalist. Bowlen should sue his ass for Libel because his article is the biggest crock of lies I've seen yet.

I agree 100%. We used to think we ALWAYS had a shot at the division up until 3 years ago. The steady decline happened the day Bowlen fired Shanahan.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Pretty good record, all things considered. You've been peddling this theory of yours that the organization was broken for years; it has never been even close to accurate...well, perhaps until 2010 I guess. In any event there are 32 teams, and only one gets a Lombardi every year. If thats your only measure of success then not much help anyone can give you I guess. For me I wanty the Broncos to win as many games as possible every year. 8-8 looks pretty damned good compared to whatever we'll end up at. 9-7 better still. 10-6 even better. Every year you win more than you lose is in fact a good year. Totally satisfying? Nope, but then life is funny like that.

No I haven't. You are wrong. I have said throughout the years the orgranization is "stagnant"....not "broken". Stagnant and broken are two completely different meanings.